ed Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists" - "joined for ces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues".
ore than can be said for the "high IQ" right-winger around here, who mostly haven't heard of the Suess Effect. Why they felt it politically necessary to endorse pro-free market nonsense is spelled out in the book.
The confusion is all yours. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway are science hi storians, not environmentalists. They were entertained by the way a bunch o f clowns have lied - for right-wing money - about a variety of scientific research results over the years, and how some senior scientists have been b ought onto the bandwagon.
The story isn't in the least confusing, and more than it's green. It isn't all that edifying either, but you seem to be blind to moral aspects of lyin g for short-term financial advantage.
Don't be stupid. I'm not green - but I do object to being taken for a sucke r. Several regular posters here are suckers for denialist propaganda, and disl ike being characterised as gullible.
Quite a few do, but don't make a fuss about it.
When the debater hasn't heard of the Suess Effect, they are wasting their t ime trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant asser tions don't cut much ice.
tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save e nergy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those alrea dy, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
I'm not arguing to get anybody to do anything. The limit of my ambitions is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Regi ster and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
He'd have to learn critical thinking before he could do that reliably, so i t's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
ur elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
I can't see that there's much a market for my skills - I do test this propo sition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for several year s - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
houghts:
y use
Nowhere near as effective as more efficient light sources, which Philips is now pushing, big-time.
eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
You'd have to put sensors - and probably activators - on your doors and win dows, and it will be a while before that happens.
There are several "better light bulbs" around. They cost a lot to develop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job with t hat branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips perso nnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one t old me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bunch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, Haffm ans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conductivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working product.
I resurrected my old BASIC program and the computer it runs on.
METHOD The program runs a monthly loop for the projected life of the PV cells, tabulating a running balance.
The balance is initialized with the cost of the panels, inverter, and battery, then updated monthly by crediting the full retail value of any electricity produced, and subtracting the cost of capital (interest cost) on the remaining balance.
The PV output is depreciated to 80% over the life of the system. Any batteries are depreciated over their expected lifetime, replaced, and charged against the running balance.
All prices are adjusted annually for specified inflation.
There's an adjustment factor to adjust for 1kW/m^2-rated panels' output in lower-insolated locations.
SCENARIO #1 (ROSY) Fixed cost: $1.25/W for PV cells+frames, installed, $.25/w inverter cost, Battery: no Insolation: 300 days' worth equal to 5 peak hrs/day, 1kW/m^2 insolation Price of Power: $.13/kWH for electricity System efficiency: 94% Inflation: 3.5% price inflation Interest rate: 5.5% interest rates System life: 25-year Maintenance: zero
The program calculates the initial balance (investment) is paid off (returned) after 10 years, 4 months, and leaves you with a $4.33 credit (in inflated dollars) in the balance, after 25 years.
That is, it paid back the $1.50 you put in and paid you $4.33 profit.
The 25th root of (($1.50+$4.33)/$1.50) = 1.0558, a 5.58% ROI. (2.4% above inflation).
This assumes all the electricity produced is used by the panel owner in real-time to replace retail-priced power. If you assume otherwise, the value of the electricity produced plummets.
SCENARIO #2 If we model someone who uses some of their production and sells part to the grid by assuming an effective value of $0.065/kWH for the electricity produced, the same assumptions leaves you with a profit of $0.33 per watt after 25 years, a 0.81% ROI.
MORE SCENARIOS interest rate: 5.5% inflation: 3.5% insolation: 1kW/m^2, 5kWH/day*m^2, 300 days, etc.
"foolish" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic global warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is quite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positions" look decidedly foolish.
causes
are speculative at best. The theory has not been scientifically proven to be true.
(to keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof.
sh" you have to explain why. Since the basic argument about anthropogenic g lobal warming is scientific, you've missed the point that the science is qu ite solid enough to make both the "denialist" and "it doesn't matter positi ons" look decidedly foolish.
uses
are speculative at best. The theory has not been scientifically proven to be true.
(to keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof.
Not as good as it might look to the unsophisticated observer.
The third point
"> >man is causing CO2 increase: speculation, there are other possible c auses"
is actually wrong. If NT knew about the Suess Effect
formatting link
he'd be aware that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere clearly comes from burni ng fossil carbon as fuel. This rather limits the other possible sources - I haven't seen anybody even list any faintly plausible alternatives.
Similarly
"Yes you can trot out a list of scientists that say they believe in AGW, (t o keep their jobs) that does not constitute a scientific proof."
would be more germane if he specified what he though "scientific proof" mig ht be. He's right that having 97% of the top 300 climate scientists agree t hat the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is persuasive doesn't con stitute "scientific proof" - science doesn't work like that.
What he needs to realise is that the world is warming, and the rising CO2 l evels produced by digging up and burning fossil carbon are the best explana tion we've got for that temperature rise.
People have come up with alternative explanations for the temperature rise, and even got some of them published in peer-reviewed journals, but none of the alternative explanations have withstood critical examination. That's h ow scientific theories get tested - they aren't proven in the sense that ma thematical propositions can be, but rather proof-tested against reality.
Popper argued that no scientific theory was ever "proven" - for him, to qua lify as scientific a theory had to be falsifiable, which implies the possib ility that a new and unexpected piece of evidence could eventually disprove it.
NT is right in one sense - any climate scientist who came up with a better explanation of global warming than the current one would indeed lose his (o r her) job, but only to trade it in for a much better one.
The real scientific heroes are the people who kill off an old theory by com ing up with a better one. Einstein did it to Newton and Maxwell, but he pee ved Mach by making atoms real with his explanation of Brownian motion - to Mach atoms were invisible and thus purely hypothetical.
tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save e nergy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those alrea dy, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
ur elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
houghts:
y use
eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
But you're missing a critical fact, which--in all seriousness--is that Bill's philosophy only entails things other people must do. _______
Here's a bit of a hoot--the NREL insolation predictions are done with climate cloud models, and, NREL says their net insolation results are only believed good to 10%.
formatting link
+/-10% is +/-100W/m^2 !!!
IOW, global climate models don't even know how much sun hits the ground.
d tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those alr eady, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here a nd convincing no-one?
your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
thoughts:
rgy use
s, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
In all seriousness, global warming entails stuff which we all have to do.
My individual effort could delay the catastrophe by about 5msec, so it's no t worth doing anything on my own.
If all 7 billion of us chipped in their own 5msec, it still delays it by on ly a year, so it doesn't matter that almost everybody else thinks the same way.
Moving away from burning fossil carbon as our main energy source has to be a collective choice, and - much though James Arthur hates the concept of co llective anything - it's the only way to go.
They don't have to. Cloud cover is more predictable en mass than it is area by area. It matters to you whether your solar cells see more or less cloud , but when you are averaging over the whole planet it becomes less importan t.
To a first approximation, cloud covers 50% of the planet - rising, cooling, air condenses out water-vapour into water droplets, creating and sustainin g clouds, while falling, warming, air evaporates water droplets and dissipa tes clouds.
Conservation of mass requires that as much air rises as falls.
Lindzen did dream up a complicated scheme for getting around this, but natu re doesn't use it.
time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant ass ertions don't cut much ice.
d tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those alr eady, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here a nd convincing no-one?
is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Re gister and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
position from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for several ye ars - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
thoughts:
rgy use
is now pushing, big-time.
s, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
indows, and it will be a while before that happens.
, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips per sonnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Ven lo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the firs t time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bunch o f sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, Haf fmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conductivit y, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working product.
Getting a job has nothing to do with it. Work out what you could design and design it. If other people out there also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
ir time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant a ssertions don't cut much ice.
uld tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to sa ve energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those a lready, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
s is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
e your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead.
roposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for several years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
nt
s is now pushing, big-time.
uts, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heatin g & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
op, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job wi th that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips p ersonnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as o ne told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to V enlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the fi rst time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bunch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, H affmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conductiv ity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working product .
What you seem to be proposing is a capital-intensive development project in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Gettin g a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't.
lso think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
I'd have to think that it might have value before I'd put time energy into designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that there's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-hanging f ruit has probably been plucked.
heir time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignorant assertions don't cut much ice.
could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices to save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do those already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing he re and convincing no-one?
ons is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from Th e Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
, so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that instead .
proposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for severa l years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
ment
ips is now pushing, big-time.
nputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heat ing & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
nd windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
elop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a job with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Philips personnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for the first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a bun ch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractors, Haffmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of conduct ivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working produ ct.
in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Gett ing a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't.
Lots of corporations and individuals are working on better and new products . They arent all capital intensive.
also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
o designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that there 's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-hanging fruit has probably been plucked.
You really think no new stuff will come out developed on a shoestring? C'mo n.
their time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignora nt assertions don't cut much ice.
t could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices t o save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do tho se already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
tions is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
ly, so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
t use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that inste ad.
is proposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for seve ral years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
moment
&
ilips is now pushing, big-time.
inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive he ating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
evelop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a jo b with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Phili ps personnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for th e first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a b unch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractor s, Haffmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of condu ctivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working pro duct.
t in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Ge tting a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't.
ts. They aren't all capital intensive.
I'd like you to explain how a development of as mass-market consumer produc t isn't going to be capital intensive, but you are NT and explanation isn't your strong suit.
re also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
nto designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that the re's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-hangi ng fruit has probably been plucked.
mon.
Not if it's going to compete in a large-scale consumer market - that's ASIC territory, and you can't develop an ASIC on a shoestring.
I've got enough skill to detect when a windbag is bluffing about stuff he d oesn't understand.
le inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active hea t.
rs and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
ect in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Getting a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't .
ucts. They aren't all capital intensive.
uct isn't going to be capital intensive, but you are NT and explanation isn 't your strong suit.
If you dont know how to design a system that either expert end users or a c ompany can put together without spending megabucks then shrug, I'm not abou t to show you how. Lots of startups & individuals have done it.
here also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
into designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that t here's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-han ging fruit has probably been plucked.
C'mon.
IC territory, and you can't develop an ASIC on a shoestring.
At the risk of stating the obvious, product sales scale up over time, you d on't need to begin with an ASIC when you have no competitor.
That opens cans and cans of worms. For example, the fiscally-conservative politicians would be the ones to install and promote solar then.
Meanwhile, Obama and Carter were both clearly making political statements and said so.
OTOH Bush did install PV, but didn't make a PR case out of it.
You can connect those dots a thousand different ways.
It most certainly is NOT. It doesn't belong to him and he doesn't pay for the improvements. Michelle Obama doesn't even tend "her" garden. We pay for that.
Nope, don't see 'em.
The roof rack.
The panels look fine in the pictures, but the efficiency data suggests they're inefficient, as does the students' comment that "Modern solar thermal techology can get upwards to 70% efficiency." I take the comment to mean the student is commenting that the Carter panels' design is primitive & outdated.
Hey, we sent them to CHINA!
formatting link
I liked the AGW data they inadvertently posted in the sidebar:
Campus energy consumption 2011-12 2013-14 Electricity: 1,006,000 1,086,000 kWh Fuel Oil: 55,562 60,884 gal Propane: 3,579 6,852 gal Pellets: 34 tons in 2011-12; 64 tons in 2013-14
I'm an ardent green myself. All energy has environmental (and financial) cost, so it makes sense to use no more than necessary. I live green and have designed equipment green my whole life.
But Bill does his case no favors with constant absurd doomsaying, repeating the "97% of scientists" tripe, and all sorts of dishonest or plainly non-scientific rationales. That's propaganda. There isn't adequate scientific information to make the predictions they're offering as fact.
I design things for minimum dissipation as a matter of course, and ignore the discredited East Anglia University climategate crowd. They're shoddy workmen (as indicated by their source code) and petty politicians.
their time trying to debate a subject they know very little about - ignora nt assertions don't cut much ice.
t could tron engs do that aligns with your views & wishes? Design devices t o save energy, and not design throw away junk. Pretty much all of us do tho se already, mostly for other reasons. So what can you ever gain by arguing here and convincing no-one?
tions is to discourage John Larkin from picking up denialist nonsense from The Register and other right-wing media and posting links to it here.
ly, so it's not an ambition which I expect to achieve.
t use your elec eng skills to design something that will achieve that inste ad.
is proposition from time to time, but I've not had a job interview for seve ral years - which is unsurprising for a 72-year-old, if irritating.
moment
&
ilips is now pushing, big-time.
inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive he ating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.
and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.
evelop, and sell in millions. Not a hobbyist project. I did try to get a jo b with that branch of Philips in the Netherlands a few years ago, but Phili ps personnel officers think that elderly people can't learn anything new - as one told me, to my face, in Nijmegen in 2000, shortly before I went off to Venlo and started measuring the conductivity of aqueous solutions for th e first time in my life, where I sorted out a problem which had baffled a b unch of sub-contract electronic designers. To be fair to the sub-contractor s, Haffmans did want measurements over a one-thousand-to-one range of condu ctivity, and one of them did eventually turn my solution into a working pro duct.
t in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Ge tting a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't.
ts. They arent all capital intensive.
re also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.
nto designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that the re's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-hangi ng fruit has probably been plucked.
mon.
Here's exactly such a thing, developed on a shoe-string, that could drastically cut carbon soot from cooking stoves:
formatting link
It burns the soot cleanly and also cuts fuel use in half, all without taking anyone's life, liberty, or property.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.